FSSAI has been very much in the news in recent months. Why has the regulator suddenly become so active?
I would say the state governments have become very active. We have been trying to explain that FSSAI is primarily concerned with setting standards and framing policy, while enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the states.
Of the around 7.6 million licences and registrations, only about 5,000 are with us, while 99 per cent are with the states. Fortunately, we have been reviewing the situation with the states quite frequently, and they have responded very well.
There have also been high-level Zonal Council meetings in which chief ministers and chief secretaries have participated, and food safety enforcement has been discussed.
Has the frequency of such action (raids and notices) increased recently, or is it simply getting more attention now?
It is getting more attention now. We have been doing this regularly. For example, the recent actions were part of this continuing enforcement. It is more in the news nowadays because the states have also become more active and there is greater public awareness.
So it is not that the regulator has suddenly become active. The regulator has always been active. Our primary role is setting standards and framing policy, while the states undertake most of the enforcement because they have far more licences and registrations.
For example, we are working on front-of-pack labelling and are waiting for the Supreme Court’s judgment. We have also been cracking down on e-commerce platforms. But most of the raids that you see are conducted by state governments.
Has the frequency of action against mislabelling and front-of-pack labelling violations increased?
Yes, because we have received many more complaints. Consumer awareness has increased.
We have the Food Safety Connect app, through which we encourage people to lodge complaints. The app generates a tracking number, allowing us to follow up on the complaint. Most of these complaints are forwarded to the state governments for action.
We are now receiving many more complaints through the app because people provide details such as the date and location.
Apart from mislabelling, what are the other areas where you are receiving complaints?
Hygiene is another area. However, for us to act, a complaint should at least provide the name of the product, the location and the time. We cannot act on something when we do not have the necessary details or when the incident is too old.
Complaints received through the Food Safety Connect app or our portal can be traced and tracked. Most of these are forwarded to the state governments.
We also have a grievance redressal mechanism. If we do not receive an action-taken report from a state within the stipulated period, we can follow up with the state, remind them and speak to the Food Safety Commissioner.
On front-of-pack labelling, are you waiting for the Supreme Court’s judgment?
There is a Reuters report suggesting that FSSAI was looking at lowering the threshold for nutrients covered under the front-of-pack labelling proposal. What is the position?
What I read in the report was that the court had asked whether we were willing to consider this. We had proposed that if a product was high in two nutrients under the HFSS (high fat, high sugar, high salt) category, it would carry a red label. The court asked why this should be restricted to two nutrients.
Suppose a product is high only in sugar or only in fat. We are okay with that as well. Whatever the court orders, we will comply.
What about nutraceuticals? There is some discussion that they may face additional regulation by FSSAI. Are you framing anything new?
Nutraceuticals are already covered under FSSAI guidelines. What we have made clear to e-commerce platforms is that they are responsible for everything they sell on their platforms. They cannot say that they are merely aggregators or platforms and therefore have no responsibility for what is being sold. Whatever food product is being sold on the platform, they are responsible for it. If there is a misleading label, they are responsible and they have to conduct due diligence. Otherwise, we will take action against them.
What about exports of nutraceuticals? Do they also come under FSSAI?
The final export process involves the Export Inspection Council. But the company must have the required FSSAI licence and approval before it can export.
The final testing before export is carried out by the Export Inspection Council, which comes under the Ministry of Commerce.
There are companies that have complained that when they receive an FSSAI notice, they are not given enough time to respond before action is publicised on social media. Is this a concern?
We are not doing cancellations in that manner. We have been issuing notices for the last year. It is not something new.
Some companies have approached courts and obtained stay orders against some of these actions. What is your response?
We are contesting this in court. Most of the stay orders, in our view, are on procedural grounds and not on the merits of the mislabelling issue.
Companies often argue that the ingredients they use have been approved by FSSAI and that they have simply mentioned those ingredients on their labels. They therefore ask why FSSAI is taking action against them.
If they are correctly declaring the ingredients, we have no objection. The back of the label is supposed to contain the ingredients and other required information. However, companies should not mislead consumers. For example, if an alcoholic beverage contains rum flavour or whisky flavour, that needs to be disclosed to the consumer.
Our labelling regulation requires the front of the pack to reflect the true nature of the product. If a product is presented as a particular product, for example, and the front of the pack carries a picture of the fruit, it should contain the juice of that fruit. The basic principle is that the front of the pack should reflect the true nature of the product. Companies should not mislead consumers.
Some companies feel that there is suddenly greater pressure on the regulator and that is why the regulator is targeting them more aggressively. Is that the case?
It is primarily a result of greater consumer awareness and more active state governments. Consumers have become more aware and are demanding action.
If you had to give one message to food companies as a regulator, what would it be?
Follow the regulations and, please, do not mislead consumers.
Is the Tukaram Mundhe (Mundhe is Maharashtra FDA) factor also playing a role in what we are seeing now? Is it a combination of FSSAI and Tukaram that has made food safety such an important issue?
Tukaram has done an excellent job. And he has done it with the same team and essentially the same infrastructure. So it is a combination of several factors. He has done an excellent job. But it is not that other state Food Safety Commissioners have not been active. States such as Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan and many others have also been doing an excellent job. They have been active for quite some time. Bengal has only recently started becoming more active.
